Cantousent

I'm telling you people, this forum would work so much better with beer on draught. We could have our own little beer summit. I mean, no one will get everything he wants, but we'll still all be happy anyway. Like combat XP, I don't have the stamina to fight over lock and trap XP anymore. It's not like I don't play games with them and still enjoy them. I will continue to think that it's bad design, but once you start reiterating the same arguments two or three times, it's gotten to the point where you should stand down and let someone else take up the cause for a while. I do wish Grom would participate again, but that's mostly because I get a kick out of his posts.

I think you're woefully misguided about kill XP, Hiro, but I agree with some of your perspective. I don't think the philosophy has failed. I think the philosophy is sound, but that showcasing the XP system wasn't as important to the team as working through combat and the like. The backer beta is one of those things that has a little something for everyone to hate if they're looking for it. At any rate, I noticed that you were called out by name for the Tides kickstarter update. Very nice, mon frère. I'm hugely anticipating that title and even considering contributing a bit more to the latest update thing... the Gullet? Something like that. I notice that Tides doesn't have kill XP. <.< :Cant's guffawing and offering a beer icon:

If what you suggest is true, Reed, then why give systemic XP for the *act* of picking a lock? You don't get XP for the act of a character opening his mouth to say hello. You have specific checks which reward a success in a specific circumstance. Once again, as I've often said, I personally (and perhaps others) don't have any problem with any specific skill, playstyle, attribute, or ability granting XP. I don't even mind having some specific circumstances requiring any specific item off the preceding list. What I don't want is for the game to systemically grant XP solely for the exercise of anything on the list. I don't mind having an objective that can only be accomplished through mechanics. That's never been my issue. My issue is that granting systemic XP for each incident of mechanics use is a heavy handed way to fix the problem. If there are specific instances where a dialogue skill grants XP, the solution to the perceived shafting of lock picking or trap disarming isn't to grant tiny bits of XP for each use. It's to tie equally significant XP rewards to specific mechanics uses in the same way.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61543-are-you-for-or-against-gaining-experience-points-only-for-completing-objectives/?p=1242415 I was really hoping someone else would post a link. There are other things, but this is from over two years ago. Note that the salient point regards gaming the system, which I would take to include lock/trap XP. I'm sure someone could make the disingenuous (well... let's just call it intellectually dishonest since that's what it really is) argument that he's only talking about kill XP. The fact is, "[g]ameplay degeneration occurs when a player engages in gameplay not because they enjoy that gameplay but because the game's mechanics put the player at a disadvantage for not taking advantage of it[.]" clearly describes a system where you go out of your way to disarm traps because the system incentivizes you to do so even in situations where you would benefit from leaving the trap in place. It clearly describes a system where you are better off *not* finding a key before you find the locked chest because you actually get an additional award for picking the lock. lol They should just put in an option for every chest and door saying, "would you like to pick the lock for experience or just use the key that you found on the body of a tough enemy who yielded you no XP when you killed him?" Kill XP is bad because opportunities to kill will be ubiquitous. ...But I actually have more sympathy for kill XP. Sure, even with mine fields galore, it's doubtful that traps/locks XP will be unbalancing, so I guess the advocates have a point. On the other hand, if the argument is that it won't yield too terribly much XP, why worry if you don't get it? If it's significant enough for advocates to evoke strong feelings, then it is potentially unbalancing. ...And my gut instinct is that there are fewer people clamoring for lock/trap XP than kill, so why cater to that crowd rather than the kill XP crowd? Because the XP probably won't be significant enough to worry about, so, while it makes even less sense than kill XP, it creates less of a nuisance for the design team, so just give it as a way to shut up a minority so small it isn't even causing much of a ruckus anyhow. All of this leads me personally to believe that the design team itself has internal debates regarding the issue.

"I've greatly enjoyed Wasteland 2. Yeah, I don't like the way everything grants XP, but that's what the game does. I'd hope that, whatever happens with PoE, folks will fairly evaluate the game based on how fun it is, regardless of how hard they fought for any particular position. I'll even just pretend romances aren't part of the game if Obsidz makes a long and elaborate romance line. Anyhow, while I like the game, trap XP is a perfect example of working the system. Now, aside from the fact that what's in the chest or what's behind the door virtually always makes the XP from picking the lock completely irrelevant and is plenty reward in and of itself, and disarming the trap on such locks prevents wounding the characters and possibly destroying the contents, which makes it a no brainer to do and I'd do it without *any* XP, there are areas in the game with a lot of traps. Many many traps. Now, disarming any particular trap might be beneficial. So, since you would gladly walk over the trap and take the damage if they didn't reward you with XP for disarming it, they must grant XP. Even worse, there are times when, from a role playing perspective, you might want to leave some of those traps. For example, if there's an area to which you've gained access, from a story perspective, you might want to leave a healthy number of traps in place to dissuade other folks from trying to access the same area. ...But even worse than that, there are times when you can actually take advantage of the traps. For example, you're fighting frogs or wolves or whatnot and you can draw them through the mine field to attack you. It actually works pretty well. Shoot them full of holes while they run at you and watch them get blown up trying to close. However, since the mobs aren't all that hard, at least on Ranger level, and you can be pretty damned proficient at explosives, you get more benefit from those traps. It doesn't make me hate the game, but it does show how the design encourages the player to act in a counter-intuitive manner. As much as I don't want kill XP, and that's a lot, I find trap/lock XP outright insulting." EDIT: Technically, it's a quote, so I still needed the quotation marks.

I've seen it somewheres, but I can't remember where to find it now and I'm too lazy to look. I might check into it later if someone else doesn't post it for you. :Cant's wry grin icon:

There is a stated philosophy from actually quite a while ago, perhaps even while the kickstarter was still going.

I think it will even out. I voted no along the same lines as Lephys. I don't mind people getting XP as a result of one particular skill or ability. I would rather that it be tied to an objective or result and not handed out systemically for no reason other than the skill use. In my opinion, the ability to loot a chest or get through a door is more than ample reward. If there is some particular need to open a chest or a door, I think awarding some XP for it is not out of order. Personally, I think people who are willing to forgo XP for wanton killing are actually more likely to go out of the way to get other incidental XP. This is not unlike folks who would estimate the biggest XP reward for opening a safe in New Vegas, such as through the electronic system or cracking the safe. When you decide your actions based on the method rather than the result, the system is bad. While New Vegas is one of my favorite all time games, I think that's the game where I could disable robots using science and then destroy the inert robot for extra kill XP. Anyhow. I'm too lazy to post more, but that's the argument that strikes me at the moment. I think the poll will probably be fairly even throughout, but you never know.

That's so funny. I've almost brought out 'each footstep' argument, but I just couldn't arse myaelf. We don't really know exactly what they intend to do at this point. We may not know for a while.

Well... I guess you do have me on that one, Archimedes. It's pretty minor. I still think it's bad design, especially since they've remained solid on no kill XP. But what the hell? It's not like I'm going to refuse the play the game over the issue.

I think it's particularly telling that lock/trap XP is dead last in this poll. It falls significantly behind kill XP (by about 10 as I reckon it at this time) and doesn't even reach 40%. I don't think you can take any one poll from these forums and extrapolate too terribly much out of them, although I did think this poll was fun. However, where was the howl? I know that kill XP folks were more numerous and more vocal. Even though I fell on the other side of that issue, I respect that it's been a mainstay for a long time and people are going to be pissed off (can I say that on live TV?). Where was the huge movement for trap XP. I understand that, for a variety of reasons, kill XP is more vexing from a design perspective, but lock/trap XP is open to the same exploits as kill XP in kind, even if not in exact flavor or degree. I'm *not* making an argument for kill XP. I'm just saying that lock/trap XP is absolutely ridiculous. ...And this poll doesn't even ask what folks want. It merely asks what is appropriate. I've greatly enjoyed Wasteland 2. Yeah, I don't like the way everything grants XP, but that's what the game does. I'd hope that, whatever happens with PoE, folks will fairly evaluate the game based on how fun it is, regardless of how hard they fought for any particular position. I'll even just pretend romances aren't part of the game if Obsidz makes a long and elaborate romance line. Anyhow, while I like the game, trap XP is a perfect example of working the system. Now, aside from the fact that what's in the chest or what's behind the door virtually always makes the XP from picking the lock completely irrelevant and is plenty reward in and of itself, and disarming the trap on such locks prevents wounding the characters and possibly destroying the contents, which makes it a no brainer to do and I'd do it without *any* XP, there are areas in the game with a lot of traps. Many many traps. Now, disarming any particular trap might be beneficial. So, since you would gladly walk over the trap and take the damage if they didn't reward you with XP for disarming it, they must grant XP. Even worse, there are times when, from a role playing perspective, you might want to leave some of those traps. For example, if there's an area to which you've gained access, from a story perspective, you might want to leave a healthy number of traps in place to dissuade other folks from trying to access the same area. ...But even worse than that, there are times when you can actually take advantage of the traps. For example, you're fighting frogs or wolves or whatnot and you can draw them through the mine field to attack you. It actually works pretty well. Shoot them full of holes while they run at you and watch them get blown up trying to close. However, since the mobs aren't all that hard, at least on Ranger level, and you can be pretty damned proficient at explosives, you get more benefit from those traps. It doesn't make me hate the game, but it does show how the design encourages the player to act in a counter-intuitive manner. As much as I don't want kill XP, and that's a lot, I find trap/lock XP outright insulting. EDIT: Matt, Immortalis is just being crotchety. We need to give him a bottle of rye and grant him XP for killing it off. :Cant's Rye grin icon:

The most important feature is its 'funness' rating. The are individual things I don't like, but I enjoy the whole package immensely. Dialogue skills have been disappointing to me personally, but the other non combat skill opportunities have been plentiful and rewarding.

Well, I don't think that it boils down to munchkins vs. the pure of heart. I prefer Objective only, but it's never been exactly what I envisioned in the first place, and I've always tried my best to be charitable when evaluating the arguments on every side. I just hope Obsidz has the system now and sticks to the plan because changing on the fly will only lead to more grief and grumbling. I completely agree with you about ToN's system. I've enjoyed Wastelands 2 and I'm becoming more stoked about ToN as the days pass. I don't want to follow the development because I want to save the game for full release. I'm almost tempted to randomly change my password for this place to make it so I can't waste time arguing about stuff here and then reset the password if there's some new questionnaire or some such for fulfillment. lol Good times!

I'm stoked at the idea of the Tides XP system. That looks like it could have tons of potential. Yeah, it's something that could end up completely whacked, but I'm glad they're making an attempt. Like most of the other folks, I think it'd be crazy to try it in PoE at this point.

I quite enjoyed Diablo 1 and 2. I didn't much care for World of Diablo, however. I don't know if the game will be 'combat centric' or not. I agree that it won't forgo everything else for the sake of combat, but Sawyer has always seemed more interested in systems more than storytelling to me. I thought New Vegas did a great job of accomplishing both great combat and great storytelling, so it's not like I'm complaining. Combat will be a huge part of PoE even if it's not the main thrust. ...And of course there will be storytelling and character progression and the like. I don't think a game must have kill XP because it's combat centric, but that's a different discussion.

I don't think player mods or even designer modifications that come years after release should count for the purposes of evaluating the games. How they were at release side by side is, from my perspective, the only reasonable way to compare them.

I don't agree with Raz about everything, but I *do* especially about one thing: I think the objective system should be more robust. This is basically a combat testing beta, but I sure as hell hope that the way that objectives are handled in the finished product will not only be more abundant, but also more sensible and engaging. Other than the one dude's daughter, I didn't really *feel* any of the quests. On the other hand, I have no illusions that no one on the design team even realizes I exist, let alone heeds my particular brand of advice. lol I don't care. I trust them to flesh out the objectives. I think the bestiary compromise is pretty shoddy, but it probably gets support in the broad middle so no biggie. I think much more can be done with it but... meh. I am *deeply* disappointed with lock xp, but I don't think it's a compromise with the fans. I think there are people in the dev house that want XP for some of these incidentals, and it's a compromise within the team. Of course, I have no way of backing that up, so I guess it goes in the conspiracy theory file. EDIT: I'm an idiot. (even put in my own period so someone can quote.) I started out completely opposite of what I mean.

To make a simplified explanation that uses a common sort of quest, the warehouse is beset by poisonous spiders. You can't negotiate and sneaking around doesn't resolve the issue. The only method to resolve the issue with any satisfaction is to destroy the spiders. The design team could do much more with the simple idea that negotiation and stealth might not always be an option. They aren't always an option in real life. There should be some objectives that *require* negotiation. No other method might resolve the issue to any real satisfaction. I think Elrond used the term systemic up above. When XP is doled out systemically for combat, then it incentivizes players to use a combat resolution. It makes it one of the preferred methods of playing. ...But folks who like combat will already gravitate towards that solution. There isn't any need to provide further incentive for such players. You want to be a bad-ass because that's how you roll? Fair enough. Now you can claim that the reason your PC is murderous is entirely because that's how you see him, not because you'll get a little extra by doing it. Removing kill XP doesn't prevent people from enjoying anything the game provides. It just doesn't reward them for playing a certain way. I don't think it should. Maybe I feel that way because I'm a 'casual gamer,' whatever that is. *shrug*

From my perspective, the bestiary compromise worked. There was a flurry of responses after Sawyer announced it. Those died down. The sheer number of people doggedly pushing the issue diminished. Probably because some were happy to have something akin to the kill XP they desired and others decided to accept it. There have been a couple threads since then, but the level of vitriol has ebbed. Even Immortalis' thread hasn't been really contentious about quest only XP. It has a few weak flames, but mostly it's seemed to be a measured discussion. ...And you, my angelic friend, God bless you, are willing to keep up the battle on the issue, and that's just part of your charm. I would like to say something about the argument that bestiary XP is in fact kill XP. First of all, the only people I've seen make that argument so far are people who continue that argument by saying, "and since the bestiary is actually kill XP, they should just get rid of the bestiary and give kill XP." The bestiary is not the equivalent of kill XP. It is objective XP in which the objective can only be completed by combat. Note, there will be any number of times in the game where combat will be necessary to complete an objective. In this case, the objective is more clearly tied to the means (combat), but it's no different than the fact that combat is necessary to complete the ogre quest, even if you don't complete the last step of the ogre quest by engaging in combat with the actual ogre. For my part, I have *always* said that I don't mind combat granting XP through specific objectives tied to it. My preference would be to have some objective XP tied to any number of skills and some to combat. I think the bestiary is a little on the nose, probably because it was the only way to placate some folks, but I don't mind the principle, just the heavy handed way of doing it. If they come out with an objective (quest) that can only be completed with lock-picking, I would be perfectly happy. I would hope it wouldn't be a lockiary, but the point is, it's a small quantifiable reward. Go for it. Put in a quest that can only be completed by some quick talking. Once again, the dialogueary would sound stupid, but you get the point. I don't mind folks getting XP at certain points exclusively through any means, including combat. I don't want folks to get XP simply by attacking a creature, killing it, and seeing a number floating over the characters' heads. ...And, if they were smart, since the bestiary is actually a dumb way to filter it out at the end, allow other means to fill at least some of the bestiary entries. Tie some of the entries to lore and some to dialogue, etc. ...And *then* still put in some quest that requires combat to complete.

I gave WL2 quite a positive review, but I don't think Obsidz should try to make PoE a WL2 clone in a fantasy setting. Just like I don't think inXile should make ToN a WL2 clone in a Planescape setting. (which is good, since they don't have the PS license as I understand it. ...But I do agree that I love WL2.

I'm 45 and, apparently, quite young compared to some of you ol' bastards! bwahahahaha

lol I was hoping you going to explain how the numbers work in Darklands, Matt. ...But I think it may have been.

Well, given that we're only getting five skills, that won't be reproduced in PoE either. Unless it is somehow being implemented via talents... Darklands is kind of like Morrowind in that you increase your proficiency by using a skill, which included combat skills. In a PoE analogous example, it would be as if you could gain skill in bladed weapons by using a bladed weapon to fight folks. ...But there isn't any XP or XP bar that the player sees filling up in Darklands. I never knew the math behind the skills, but every now and then you'd see your skill increase for doing things. Alchemy was could be increased by creating potions or hiring a teacher and using your time to study. Virtue, however, could only be improved by doing virtuous deeds. For example, if you meet up with pilgrims traveling to a shrine and go out of your way to escort them safely to the shrine, there was some chance that one, some, or all of your people might gain virtue. For big virtuous acts, such as destroying a demonic altar, you could get even more. Speak common could be increased by convincing the city guard to let you pass through the gates without paying, talking your way out of fighting with bandits, or other common sense activities associated with speaking. Combat and non-combat skills weren't treated differently in terms of range or proficiency, but when and how often they were rewarded was not always the same. There is no way the design team is going to *entirely* scrap the current system to implement anything remotely like Darklands at this point because it's not 'skills' as defined in PoE that had such a system in Darklands, but everything.

I agree with JF. XP doesn't make you free to do something you want to do, especially if you already want to do it. XP tells you that the design team prefers you to behave in a certain way. It's just like the tax code, which penalizes people for certain actions and rewards people for other actions for the express purpose of incentivizing citizens. Why should the designers incentivize people to go out of their way to engage in combat? People like to say, "the game is combat centric and therefore it's foolish not to give rewards for each incident of combat." ...But, the fact that combat is a strong component of the game is already rewarded. If you must engage in combat somewhere along the line to complete certain quests, you are rewarded when you complete the quest. Since quest experience is doled out at various stages, such as entering the ogre cave, then you are rewarded for getting past the spiders in front of the cave no matter how you do, and for most folks, maybe even all folks depending on how they approach it, combat will be a necessity. Upon entering the cave, combat has rewarded you with XP. It just doesn't reward you with XP for each incident of fighting. I'm sure most people will purchase weapons, rest, and talk to NPCs along the way. They won't be rewarded for XP for those activities. Even more than combat, folks will be forced to walk from place to place and over the same ground repeatedly. They don't expect to get an XP reward for walking back and forth to the inn, various shops, and other areas of interest. ...And no one suggests that the player is not free to walk from place to place because the PC doesn't receive an XP reward for doing so.

I would really dig a true Darklands remake. There were so many frustrating and self-destructive things in Darklands, but the game itself is still great. I bought it when it was first released and bought it again recently on GoG. If you can get over the many flaws, the fun factor remains. However, for the folks who complain that PoE isn't enough like the IE games, Darklands is *nothing* like them. The closest would be the primitive real time with pause combat, I guess. Also, I think it'd take a really gutsy developer to tackle the quasi-historical nature of the 'divine' magic system and depiction of medieval Christianity. Darklands was a brilliant concept with some bright highlights and a *lot* of missed opportunity on top of which the designers applied a healthy number of appalling bugs.